|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Apr 12, 2024 15:49:08 GMT -5
Byrne wanted to change the Hulk to be more like his favourite version, and to go back to before it was public knowledge that Banner was the Hulk, perhaps keeping this secret from the readers for a while too. Not a bad idea… |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Apr 12, 2024 15:58:03 GMT -5
Byrne wanted to change the Hulk to be more like his favourite version, and to go back to before it was public knowledge that Banner was the Hulk, perhaps keeping this secret from the readers for a while too. Not a bad idea… It isn’t a bad idea, but in a general sense, Byrne did seem almost single-minded in resetting status quos (whether they were approved by editorial or not). There can be a place for that, but it did often seem like he wanted to restore a status quo no matter what. Sometimes, not always, some change is good, e.g. I liked how Peter Parker left school, stood up to Jameson more, shared a flat with Harry, etc. I’m not sure Byrne would have done it that way. |
|
|
|
Post by MRPs_Missives on Apr 12, 2024 16:32:34 GMT -5
Byrne wanted to change the Hulk to be more like his favourite version, and to go back to before it was public knowledge that Banner was the Hulk, perhaps keeping this secret from the readers for a while too. Not a bad idea… Except that trying to put the genie back in the bottle never works well in execution, especially with pop culture characters that have had 25+ years of development and with it a train of people who were "12" at different points coming in who will never agree which snapshot of that 25 years was the best one. Even when he was doing it with Superman with an editorial mandate there were issues with that approach and they had to do Man of Steel to cover all the lost ground trying to please a lot of different people before they relaunched with a #1 which didn't go back to the beginning it started at the fast forward point they left off at after Man of Steel. Pretty much the only genie back in the bottle attempt that worked well and stuck for any length of time was Perez's reboot of Wonder Woman and with that they didn't try to reset the clock so much as just started over completely wiping out anything that came before (and even then it had issues with some aspects of it and portions of the customer base). And both Superman and Wonder Woman had the whole editorial line behind them and still had trouble pulling it off, one lone rogue creator is not likely to do so. -M |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Apr 12, 2024 16:41:34 GMT -5
Is there, and this is speculation, a chance that Byrne, consciously or subconsciously, was on a crusade to “put the genie back in the bottle” at certain times?
I base my assumption a lot on his own words written over time, such as at his forum. I don’t know if he necessarily liked the fact that Peter Parker went to university, got married, etc.
I am making assumptions here, and I have no evidence to back up my words, but even with his “photocopy heroes”, or what I’ve read about New Visions, it does often feel like he comes across as the comicbook equivalent of Sam Beckett from Quantum Leap.
I certainly agree with MRP about a train of people not agreeing which snapshot of a 25-year period was the best one.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Apr 13, 2024 8:29:19 GMT -5
I am enlarging this thread to observations other than Byrne and Thing vs Hulk. Kane and Giacoia on Spider-Man. Many remember (including me) the work Gil Kane did when he took over Spider-Man from Romita with inks and finishes by Jazzy John. But issues 97-105 were inked by Fabulous Frank G, and they look great. These included six armed Spidey #100 and the first Mobius stories. Looking at these in the Gil Kane Artisan edition (original art) It looks to me like Frank was styling his inking to look like Romita.  |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Apr 13, 2024 11:40:43 GMT -5
You'd think with all the variations, Number Ones, and reboots of the same titles and characters that seem to be endemic in Marvel and DC comics today that they could have used that opportunity to simply put out different lines of comics devoted to different takes on characters rather than trying to force-feed old continuities together into one new one or simply redo the older versions with the slightest of changes.
You like "Old Superman"? Buy the "Old Superman" line with stories set in the past. You like Wally West Flash? Read the Modern (?) Age Flash line.
After all, there have been different takes on all kinds of characters that appear on the heels of a previous version and even simultaneously,from Dracula and the other monsters to Sherlock Holmes, Zorro, and Doc Savage. And guess what? As with the multiple-Earth concept, it turns out that fans can keep it all straight. Couldn't they have done something similar with comics?
I mean, DC had kids' versions of the heroes back in the mid-90s that my two boys loved. And I enjoyed them too. Especially amidst the dark, grim 'n' gritty swill that the "grown-up" comics had become.
At DC, Elseworlds and other one-shots seemed to be doing that, but they only showed up as one-shots.
I'll never understand why there was such a reluctance to do what they'd done in the early Silver Age and simply create new versions of the characters with enough of a link to the past that they weren't entirely new, but different enough to make sense in a new world.
Why did the anal retentive OCD continuity cops have to take over?
|
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Apr 13, 2024 12:01:13 GMT -5
Holmes is a good reference point. I own the Basil Rathbone films on DVD. I am not trying to match up their continuity with the Jeremy Brett series, various movies, and the novels. They are what they are. If I read a Super Friends comic, I didn’t expect or desire any continuity with the mainstream books. I was fine with DC Comics’ Star Trek comics. True, I did post how I felt they were very true to the spirit of the movies/TV show, but I accept that their canon could be apocryphal, and I have no desire to see anyone make sense of it all. My friend is a fan of Archie’s comics, and he sends me a box of the Archie trades he’s finished with, such as the WWII tale, and it’s all interesting, it’s all good fun, and I am not pedantic about the continuity at all. So, I agree with you, Prince Hal. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Apr 13, 2024 12:11:09 GMT -5
Holmes is a good reference point. I own the Basil Rathbone films on DVD. I am not trying to match up their continuity with the Jeremy Brett series, various movies, and the novels. They are what they are. If I read a Super Friends comic, I didn’t expect or desire any continuity with the mainstream books. I was fine with DC Comics’ Star Trek comics. True, I did post how I felt they were very true to the spirit of the movies/TV show, but I accept that their canon could be apocryphal, and I have no desire to see anyone make sense of it all. My friend is a fan of Archie’s comics, and he sends me a box of the Archie trades he’s finished with, such as the WWII tale, and it’s all interesting, it’s all good fun, and I am not pedantic about the continuity at all. So, I agree with you, Prince Hal . Thanks, I was hoping that made sense. BTW, I love seeing all kinds of interpretations of Holmes as well. Grew up with the Rathbone movies and still have a fondness for them, but I am equally at home with the Brett series, the Cumberbatch shows, the film "Murder by Decree" and the Downey movies included. I did draw the line at a novel that had Holmes fighting the Martians from "War of the Worlds," but not for that reason. It was because he was having an affair with Mrs. Hudson. Not my cup of aspic. Oh, and there was another that I felt went off the rails in which Holmes is pursuing the Ripper, but turns out to be the Ripper. Other than those, I think I've found something to enjoy in every version of Holmes. |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Apr 13, 2024 12:23:30 GMT -5
Even within a film series, I don’t expect 100% continuity. One of the Rathbone films sees Holmes and Watson active during WWII, but other films are clearly set in the 1880s. But you just ignore that kind of thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Apr 13, 2024 12:45:54 GMT -5
Even within a film series, I don’t expect 100% continuity. One of the Rathbone films sees Holmes and Watson active during WWII, but other films are clearly set in the 1880s. But you just ignore that kind of thing. Yes, and actually almost all of them take place in the contemporary world. IIRC, it may only be "Hound" and "The Adventures" that are set in the Victorian Age. |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Apr 13, 2024 13:03:06 GMT -5
Even within a film series, I don’t expect 100% continuity. One of the Rathbone films sees Holmes and Watson active during WWII, but other films are clearly set in the 1880s. But you just ignore that kind of thing. Yes, and actually almost all of them take place in the contemporary world. IIRC, it may only be "Hound" and "The Adventures" that are set in the Victorian Age. You know, putting What If?… aside, because Marvel could only tell the tales they wanted in that kind of book, I did hate how comics went down the path of designating Earths for this and that, an Earth for mainstream Marvel stuff, an Earth for the Spidey/Transformers team-up, an Earth for the early DC/Marvel crossovers, etc. It seemed to suck the joy out of it. Earth-One and Earth-Two are a whole different ball game, but as far as Marvel and DC are concerned, did we need designations for the aforementioned tales? It was fun seeing Spidey show up in a Transformers comic, and I was in awe of those early DC/Marvel crossovers. I didn’t over-think it as a kid or an adult. It all simply happened as presented. But then you’re told years later that, actually, the early DC/Marvel crossovers took place on an Earth different from the one in the regular books. Why even come up with pedantry? (It’s a hill I’ll die on) |
|
|
|
Post by chaykinstevens on Apr 13, 2024 13:29:12 GMT -5
Kane and Giacoia on Spider-Man. Many remember (including me) the work Gil Kane did when he took over Spider-Man from Romita with inks and finishes by Jazzy John. But issues 97-105 were inked by Fabulous Frank G, and they look great. These included six armed Spidey #100 and the first Mobius stories. Looking at these in the Gil Kane Artisan edition (original art) It looks to me like Frank was styling his inking to look like Romita. According to GCD, Romita inked five pages of ASM #97, and Tony Mortellaro inked the backgrounds of #97-100. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Apr 13, 2024 13:55:40 GMT -5
Yes, and actually almost all of them take place in the contemporary world. IIRC, it may only be "Hound" and "The Adventures" that are set in the Victorian Age. You know, putting What If?… aside, because Marvel could only tell the tales they wanted in that kind of book, I did hate how comics went down the path of designating Earths for this and that, an Earth for mainstream Marvel stuff, an Earth for the Spidey/Transformers team-up, an Earth for the early DC/Marvel crossovers, etc. It seemed to suck the joy out of it. Earth-One and Earth-Two are a whole different ball game, but as far as Marvel and DC are concerned, did we need designations for the aforementioned tales? It was fun seeing Spidey show up in a Transformers comic, and I was in awe of those early DC/Marvel crossovers. I didn’t over-think it as a kid or an adult. It all simply happened as presented. But then you’re told years later that, actually, the early DC/Marvel crossovers took place on an Earth different from the one in the regular books. Why even come up with pedantry? (It’s a hill I’ll die on)I'll be there if you need more ammo!  |
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Apr 13, 2024 14:28:09 GMT -5
Yes, and actually almost all of them take place in the contemporary world. IIRC, it may only be "Hound" and "The Adventures" that are set in the Victorian Age. You know, putting What If?… aside, because Marvel could only tell the tales they wanted in that kind of book, I did hate how comics went down the path of designating Earths for this and that, an Earth for mainstream Marvel stuff, an Earth for the Spidey/Transformers team-up, an Earth for the early DC/Marvel crossovers, etc. It seemed to suck the joy out of it. Earth-One and Earth-Two are a whole different ball game, but as far as Marvel and DC are concerned, did we need designations for the aforementioned tales? It was fun seeing Spidey show up in a Transformers comic, and I was in awe of those early DC/Marvel crossovers. I didn’t over-think it as a kid or an adult. It all simply happened as presented. But then you’re told years later that, actually, the early DC/Marvel crossovers took place on an Earth different from the one in the regular books. Why even come up with pedantry? (It’s a hill I’ll die on) I feel like the best way to avoid overthinking these funky crossovers would be simply not to worry about the post hoc alternative universe explanations. Having joy sucked out the stories and dying on hills feels contrary to insisting alternative universes are unnecessary. Spider-Man appearing in Transformers was cool in its own right; that doesn't depend on the story happening or not happening in the same continuity. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Apr 13, 2024 14:29:10 GMT -5
Kane and Giacoia on Spider-Man. Many remember (including me) the work Gil Kane did when he took over Spider-Man from Romita with inks and finishes by Jazzy John. But issues 97-105 were inked by Fabulous Frank G, and they look great. These included six armed Spidey #100 and the first Mobius stories. Looking at these in the Gil Kane Artisan edition (original art) It looks to me like Frank was styling his inking to look like Romita. According to GCD, Romita inked five pages of ASM #97, and Tony Mortellaro inked the backgrounds of #97-100. I think Mortellaro inked backgrounds for a lot of issues. |
|
